For a search warrant to be valid, it must be issued upon probable cause to be determined by the judge himself by examining under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses the latter may produce. This case of the manufacturer of acetylene, oxygen and other industrial gases and distributor of LPG products (PGI) explains the meaning of probable cause in the issuance of a search warrant.
PGI has been selling LPG products directly or through various dealers to hospitals, restaurants and other business establishments in Visayas and Mindanao regions contained in 11-kg, 22-kg or 50-kg cylinders that are exclusively manufactured for its use. The cylinders are embossed with its marking and logo.
In 2002, PGI noticed the decline in the return of its LPG cylinders for refilling and suspected that one of its competitors, SGI, had been removing the cylinders from market circulation and refilling them. So its sales manager sought the assistance of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) to recover the LPG cylinders allegedly in possession of SGI.
Acting on the sales manager’s complaint, CIDG conducted surveillance on the SGI warehouse by requesting the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) to conduct a routine fire inspection at the SGI warehouse with some of the CIDG operatives posing as BFP inspectors. Thus the CIDG were able to enter the warehouse and take photographs of the cylinders.
So on June 4, 2002, the CIDG applied before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for a warrant to search the premises of SGI. The application averred that SGI was in possession of PGI LPG tanks with some of the logos scraped off and replaced with SGI markings as well as other materials used in tampering PGI tanks. It also averred that SGI through its manager was illegally distributing PGI LPG products without the latter’s consent in violation of Section 2 R.A. 623 as amended by R.A. 5700.
After conducting searching questions on the CIDG operative and an employee of PGI who were presented as witnesses, the judge upheld the validity of the surveillance conducted in the SGI warehouse and found probable cause. Thus he issued the corresponding search warrant authorizing the seizure of assorted sizes of PGI gas tanks, suspected gas tank cylinders with PGI marks scraped off and replaced with SGI marks, and other materials used in tampering PGI tanks. By virtue of the warrant the CIDG agents were able to seize 608 gas tank cylinders of assorted weights with and without seals. Thereafter, the CIDG filed a criminal complaint against the SGI manager before the City Prosecutor for violation of R.A. 623, Section 2.
But upon motion for reconsideration filed by the SGI manager, the RTC judge reversed its earlier finding of probable cause. The judge ruled that since the CIDG agents failed to seize other materials and tools used by SGI manager to tamper the LPG cylinders, there would be nothing to show or prove that he had committed the offense. The court said that mere possession of the PGI cylinders seized from the SGI manager was not illegal per se absent any showing that he illegally used the same without the consent of PGI. Was the judge correct?
No. Probable cause for a search warrant consists of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discrete and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. It rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction.
The trial court’s conclusion that mere possession by the SGI manager of the seized gas cylinders was not punishable under Section 2 of R.A. 623 as amended is not correct. Said law punishes any person who shall fill the steel cylinders or tanks of a manufacturer who has successfully registered the marks of ownership over the same, or to sell, dispose of, buy or traffic in or wantonly destroy the same. The unauthorized use of the cylinder by a person other than the registered manufacturer and the possession thereof by a dealer creates a prima facie presumption of the unlawful use of gas cylinders.
The failure of the CIDG operatives to confiscate articles and materials used in tampering with the PGI markings and logo did not negate the existence of probable cause. The fact of possession and distribution of gas cylinders and PGI’s claim that it did not authorize the SGI manager to distribute the same was sufficient indication that he is probably guilty of the illegal use of the gas cylinders punishable under Section 2 of R.A. 623 as amended.
In quashing the warrant, the trial court had raised the standard of probable cause to whether it is sufficient to hold the SGI manager for trial. Sufficiency of probable cause in the issuance of the search warrant is not the same as sufficiency of probable cause to hold him for trial which will still be subsequently determined by the investigating prosecutor.
The quashing of the warrant is therefore erroneous and the seized articles should therefore be returned into the custody of the trial court (Santos vs. Pryce Gas Inc. G.R. 165122, November 23, 2007).
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net